Are we tough enough on convicted criminals?

[ultra...good]

Not only does this example show just how bad our jail/prison systems are run, it also points out that jail must not be that bad of a place to live. Not that I want to go there.

Former inmate sneaks back into jail at Rikers Island and impersonates Department of Corrections employee [PIX exclusive] | PIX 11

 

[Jarhead77]

To answer the title....NO. If we were, Chicago, Detroit, DC and most if LA would be ghost towns.

 

[Mike H]

I would like to know what that goof ball was doing there?
I read the article but I didn't see that there.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I would answer both yes and no. Or 'justice' system is geared toward minimizing risk and maximizing return. The most harsh enforcement will be found in victimless 'offenses' against regulations and prohibitions and the least attention given to actual violent crime. Follow the money and you will find the answers. It is argued that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent by virtue of the continued existence of capital crimes. I would say that this argument is laughable given that when I was in training with the DOC approximately 5% of perpetrators of capital crimes are correctly identified, of which a minority are convicted, of which only a single-digit percentage are actually executed before dying of other causes. How is a punishment which someone has practically no chance of actually receiving going to deter anyone from anything?

If we were to re-prioritize our entire system of criminal justice, there may be a chance--otherwise, we can forget about any sane application of law.

 

[Degtyaryov]

Not tough enough on the actual dangerous, violent criminals, and far too tough on all the people who fall victim to absurd laws.

 

[BogWalker]

Agreed with above. We need to be harsher on the violent ones, and not worry so much on the stupid crimes. Keep the violent mugger in jail, let the guy out who got convicted of illegal gambling. Prisons are overcrowded and costing a lot of money. It is time we prioritize just who needs to be locked up.

 

[Liberty1911]

The real problem is no mechanism for restitution.

A guy rapes/robs/kills someone and he goes to jail for x years. The family of the victim gets nothing.

 

[rambone]

Agreed with above. We need to be harsher on the violent ones, and not worry so much on the stupid crimes. Keep the violent mugger in jail, let the guy out who got convicted of illegal gambling. Prisons are overcrowded and costing a lot of money. It is time we prioritize just who needs to be locked up.

Yes. And release the nonviolent drug offenders.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

Wow! Just WOW!

Do you realize what is going to happen?

Some lowly CO is going to get fired! Some poor schmuck who works a gate somewhere is going to have his professional butt whooped.

And then...

AND THEN...

They will have to promote at least a dozen bureaucrats just to shut them up and make them dump or the lowly CO.

My goodness! All those extra promotions.

Regards,

Doug

PS - I am NOT doing purple on this!

 

[HARVEYtheDAMNED]

Depends on the crime, if you ask me. As rambone pointed out, release the nonviolent drug offenders. And why not keep in the murders and rapists?

 

[dragun762]

In mikes world there would be no life wirhout parole. if you were deemed not safe to ever be in society again you would be exiled. by that i mean taken to the ocean and told to get out. if you return youd be executed. our laws and penalties are corrupt and flawed to a point of being unjust. if they cannot guaranty the saftey of every inmate in a facility and guaranty that all inmates are guilty then they should not be able to hold them. Free room and board for criminals and we let banks, cities, and government steal the homes of people who are honest americans. the goverment is not your friend

 

[MickeyBlueEyes]

With my birdseye view of the situation, the system of crime and punishment is broken. There is no hard times even in a max facility. Getting all the perks for being in prison, 14 bucks just for sitting quietly a month. Plus, free heat, free sewage, free water, free healthcare, free food 3 times a day, free cable, and free g.e.d's, free post secondary educations, free gym membership, freedom of movement, 20 bucks per person for junk food on visits, free tv's if they don't have the money to buy one, and free anything else to keep the situation under control. I don't know, do any of you see a problem or why these poor fellows that just didn't get a good education or encouragement would want to go back? I do! But you all are the tax payers, and this is public record for what these guys get out of your wallet. My last words, I do not represent the department of corrections and anything listed in my statement is public record, not private opinion. Thanks for the good question OP.

 

[jbombelli]

The real problem is no mechanism for restitution.

A guy rapes/robs/kills someone and he goes to jail for x years. The family of the victim gets nothing.

They can always sue in civil court, you know.

 

[Liberty1911]

They can always sue in civil court, you know.

They shouldn't have to. Once found guilty, there should be automatic mechanisms for restitution in sentencing.

I don't think the damaged party should have to refight the battle.

The concept of a criminal having a "debt to society" is one of the most egregious wrongs in the "justice system". The criminal has a debt to the people that were wronged, not society. Society should make him pay that debt.

 

[HARVEYtheDAMNED]

They shouldn't have to. Once found guilty, there should be automatic mechanisms for restitution in sentencing.

I don't think the damaged party should have to refight the battle.

The concept of a criminal having a "debt to society" is one of the most egregious wrongs in the "justice system". The criminal has a debt to the people that were wronged, not society. Society should make him pay that debt.

I would agree with this, although admittedly i'm not sure what sort of retribution a murderer could pay to the family of the victim. What would you suggest?

 

[ultra...good]

I would agree with this, although admittedly i'm not sure what sort of retribution a murderer could pay to the family of the victim. What would you suggest?

Anything, and everything they have (assets). After all, that is what you take from someone when you take their life.

 

[HARVEYtheDAMNED]

Anything, and everything they have (assets). After all, that is what you take from someone when you take their life.

That sounds like a pretty good start. All current, and a majority stake in any future assets as well. A very good start.

 

[Liberty1911]

I would agree with this, although admittedly i'm not sure what sort of retribution a murderer could pay to the family of the victim. What would you suggest?

Any assets they have, then a speedy execution.

If society thinks there should be years of appeals for a murderer, then during that time they should be assigned to 72 hrs a week of hard labor with all earnings forfeited until they are executed.

 

[longbarrel]

Too tough on non-violent criminals, and not tough enough on the violent ones.

 

[F250]

Victimless crimes

Tell that to the little old lady who has her purse stolen by the junkie as she walks down the street. Tell the people who live down the block after their house was broken into by the local meth head trying to find something he could make a quick buck on.
There is very few victimless crimes. Someone is going to suffer from crime.
You and I pay more for products when they are stolen from stores. We pay more for insurance when companies have to pay out in loses.
It was said that you can take them to civil court, who is going to pay the settlement? If you say their family then we have a victim again.
It was talked about gambling. What about the gamblers family? Where is that money coming from? I would say if they have a family, that family is going without the things they need.
If you want harsher punishment you have to change the people who make and interpret the law. When someone is sent to jail or prison their time is cut in half from the start. You then start going through the different programs that are available for more time cuts.
And lastly when someone is sentenced who takes care of their family. We do most of the time with our taxes.